newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.

Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!

Wrong answer, man; must vote for Obama, as in, get up off of your ass and vote for the President of the United States of America, man, please?

Thank you.

P.S. And I mean vote for marriage rights, voting rights (as in wtf, no?), and for less obfuscation and pandering to interests that don't give a shiat about you or me (semi-narcissist-talking-and-walking, btw), i.e. Corporations and multi-gazillionaires. Entitlement works both ways, jackhats.

I wonder what the voicemails and email inboxes of Republican legislators' offices must be like these days.

This is toxic for the GOP. Their already-lukewarm presidential candidate is now radioactive, individual legislators are disclaiming his remarks, and the leadership isn't willing to mount more than a weak, token defence before quite literally retreating for safe ground.

I honestly didn't expect a self-inflicted bombshell like this, certainly not after the conventions. His reputation as a liar and chameleon made a lot of people suspicious even before the nomination race began. The short foreign tour was damaging enough. The Libya screwup made him look jumpy and desperate. To have his real opinions about half of the country, along with other spectacularly poor ideas, caught coming out of his own mouth after all of this time, apparently leaked by a Republican, may finish him in the purple states. I wonder if he could even lose a solidly red state or two.

Just wait... There is no chance the anti-Rmoney folks leaked their best stuff this far from the election.

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.

What do you dislike about President Obama?I'm a moderate that leans liberal and unaffiliated with any political party, and I'm quite happy with him.

Now keep in mind, I'm a pretty young guy so I only remember President's Clinton and W. Bush. Even then I was much too young to follow or care about politics when Clinton was President. So pretty much, I've only ever known President W. Bush and President Obama. And lemme tell you something ... I'm far from the only Millennial (the largest population block in the United States) who despises the GOP for 2000-2008.

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.

What do you dislike about President Obama?I'm a moderate that leans liberal and unaffiliated with any political party, and I'm quite happy with him.

nyseattitude:The fact that it's gotten to this point is rather sad in the global scope of this nation.

I hope I live to see the day when a formidable party is available to choose from. I'm tired of feeling so disenfranchised from two behemoth's conspiring to keep everyone else out of the running.

I'm tired of politicians in general and although they are the norm they don't need to be moving forward. First and foremost these are Governmental positions, not political positions. I'd like to see the majority of politics removed/ignored from these positions.

We really don't need political parties at all, we need people willing to govern for all of us in moral and ethical fashions.

Ed Schultz(I know) is making the connection between Romney in the Boca clip saying he would turn something like the Iranian hostages to his advantage and his attack on Obama over the deaths in Benghazi.

I'll throw in "Clint Eastwood has agreed to speak at the convention, so I think we're home free." if we're stealing jokes about it.

Seriously though; the idea that people honestly believe that there is something in the two minutes that contextualize statements made 10-15 minutes before and after the "edited" part is laughable. The person recording it said that the video recorder stopped and he had to manually fix it. Context means that the full idea of what a person was trying to say has been provided in an excerpt. Mitt Romney covered dozens of different topics in the 40 minutes we have of the recording, and those statements that people have found the most offense in are far removed from the period of the dinner in question. When the video cuts out he is talking about what internal polls were showing about the campaign back in May and when the video starts up again he is discussing policy on China. Did he take a break to say some stuff that someone would react positively too, and it was so great that the people releasing the video had to remove that but not any of the other content in the video that might be well received by someone watching it?

Plus you have to remember Romney stood by his statements, he just said he could have worded it better. The idea that it was manipulated to make him sound like he said things he didn't is ridiculous.

I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

TOSViolation:I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

hubiestubert:To be honest, my issues with Romney come my Conservatism. Romney isn't a Moderate, he's not Conservative. He's just an amorphous blob of corporatist goo that doesn't even have ballast chambers to control his buoyancy...

TOSViolation:I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Mitch McConnell could take a lesson in bravery from President Obama when it comes to answering questions from the press. Just recently Mr. Obama sat through interviews with People Magazine, The Pimp with a Limp and David Letterman. Just after the attack on the diplomatic missions in the Middle East which lead to the death on an US Ambassador, President Obama stood before the Washington press corps and answered every question that was asked or I mean he would have answered every questions, if he allowed them.

TOSViolation:I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

They know who taped it. It was James Carter IV.

Also, unless the venue had a clearly marked "no recording devices" policy, it might be difficult to prove illegal activity.

Much like how musicians and comedians don't really have a leg to stand on when someone comes into a nightclub, records part of their performance, and posts it. They can ask for it to be taken down from the site, but that's really about it, and that action wouldn't do Lord Mittens of Prancey Horse much good now.

I wonder what the voicemails and email inboxes of Republican legislators' offices must be like these days.

This is toxic for the GOP. Their already-lukewarm presidential candidate is now radioactive, individual legislators are disclaiming his remarks, and the leadership isn't willing to mount more than a weak, token defence before quite literally retreating for safe ground.

I honestly didn't expect a self-inflicted bombshell like this, certainly not after the conventions. His reputation as a liar and chameleon made a lot of people suspicious even before the nomination race began. The short foreign tour was damaging enough. The Libya screwup made him look jumpy and desperate. To have his real opinions about half of the country, along with other spectacularly poor ideas, caught coming out of his own mouth after all of this time, apparently leaked by a Republican, may finish him in the purple states. I wonder if he could even lose a solidly red state or two.

Just wait... There is no chance the anti-Rmoney folks leaked their best stuff this far from the election.

What it boils down to is that WE, as an electorate, have to stop treating elections like they're sports events. There are no teams, just Americans making choices for their representatives. And that is what we have to reclaim. Representation. And that means NOT voting for folks, EVEN IF they're on your "team" if they show themselves to be amoral, reprehensible slime balls who put their own benefit before that of the people and the nation.

How many folks, would be voting for Romney if he were an Independent? How many would be voting for the man, not the "side"? Take that little letter away, and vote for the man, vote for the candidate who you think will do the best job. Based on words actually spoken. Based on past policies supported and enacted. Based on the job that they've done.

I am STILL fairly Conservative, but the party has abandoned those principles, but there are still folks I will vote for, based on their policy decisions. Based on their record. Some of them are Republicans. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them won't be either, this time around. I can say, for certain, that Mitt is NOT a good choice for the nation. If he were a Democrat, the folks who are decrying his treatment would be screaming for his head.

And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.

Grungehamster:amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.

amquelbettamin:Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.

Your oversimplification is from the Department of Oversimplification Department, man.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.

No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:Ed Schultz(I know) is making the connection between Romney in the Boca clip saying he would turn something like the Iranian hostages to his advantage and his attack on Obama over the deaths in Benghazi.

Romney's camp has already denied this, saying that Romney was saying he would take advantage of a situation like that if it presents itself in response to the questioner mentioning that Romney needed to set up an Iranian hostage scenario where Iran announces it has abandoned nuclear technology minutes after Romney is sworn in. Hearing the response Romney goes back and forth between "man, it was great that Carter's foreign policy failures were all anyone wanted to talk about in the campaign" where he spread the criticism to Iraq and other Middle Eastern policies while also mentioning that Iran needs to be contained. I think there is plausible deniable that Romney was referring to the scenario the questioner suggested, but everybody already knew that Romney jumped on the Libya thing because he thought it would score points. We didn't need the video for that.

I think the more impressive part of that question was Romney's insistence that the lack of foreign policy focus was what was missing from the campaign: that it was a disadvantage to him that nobody wanted to make this a referendum on Obama's foreign policy record.

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.

What do you dislike about President Obama?I'm a moderate that leans liberal and unaffiliated with any political party, and I'm quite happy with him.

Now keep in mind, I'm a pretty young guy so I only remember President's Clinton and W. Bush. Even then I was much too young to follow or care about politics when Clinton was President. So pretty much, I've only ever known President W. Bush and President Obama. And lemme tell you something ... I'm far from the only Millennial (the largest population block in the United States) who despises the GOP for 2000-2008.

Small things, mostly. Nothing he's done so far has been outstandingly bad, though I think the stimulus, while great in theory, was a lot of money wasted on bad investments when there were better ways to reach the same objective.

The Fast and Furious debacle happened under his watch, and I can't believe that he didn't know about it. Shipping guns to mexico and inciting gun dealers to break the law in a program that ultimately was just a free for all gun buying extravaganza by the cartels with no way to achieve the track-and-stop goals. It earned bad press for a lot of people, and I'm sure added to the violence along the border.

I am disappointed with his lack of a firm stance on immigration. I'm not a tool that believes the US should build a wall around the country to keep those nasty illegals out, but I'm also not in favor of open borders and blanket amnesty either. Make it easier to get in if you're legit, and step up the policing of the ones who aren't.

I am disappointed by the healthcare bill. I've read it, and a lot of data on it, and it does nothing to solve the problems that actually cause healthcare costs and such in the US, and is at most a panacea.

I'm anti-terrorist and pro-safety as the next guy, but why are we still maintaining gitmo, attacking people with drones instead of using resources that are much more precise and reliable? Why are we supporting states that hate us, and neglecting states that really need help?

I have issues with both republican and democrat platforms in general for their bass-ackwards policies that neglect the simple things that would do more good for the country than talking point legislation (being able to say "I banned the devil weed" or "I banned the evil-looking guns" is more sexy on the news than saying "we reinvested our dollars into crime prevention programs, urban renewal, education, and programs to help those with addictions; increased our spending on post-incarceration rehab and reassimilation programs, and reformed prisons.") However, that isn't square on Obama, even if he has said he'll sign another AWB or fails to highlight and spearhead change that helps domestically.

TOSViolation:Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.

No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.

What do you dislike about President Obama?I'm a moderate that leans liberal and unaffiliated with any political party, and I'm quite happy with him.

amquelbettamin:Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.

Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

I wonder what the voicemails and email inboxes of Republican legislators' offices must be like these days.

This is toxic for the GOP. Their already-lukewarm presidential candidate is now radioactive, individual legislators are disclaiming his remarks, and the leadership isn't willing to mount more than a weak, token defence before quite literally retreating for safe ground.

I honestly didn't expect a self-inflicted bombshell like this, certainly not after the conventions. His reputation as a liar and chameleon made a lot of people suspicious even before the nomination race began. The short foreign tour was damaging enough. The Libya screwup made him look jumpy and desperate. To have his real opinions about half of the country, along with other spectacularly poor ideas, caught coming out of his own mouth after all of this time, apparently leaked by a Republican, may finish him in the purple states. I wonder if he could even lose a solidly red state or two.

Just wait... There is no chance the anti-Rmoney folks leaked their best stuff this far from the election.

What it boils down to is that WE, as an electorate, have to stop treating elections like they're sports events. There are no teams, just Americans making choices for their representatives. And that is what we have to reclaim. Representation. And that means NOT voting for folks, EVEN IF they're on your "team" if they show themselves to be amoral, reprehensible slime balls who put their own benefit before that of the people and the nation.

How many folks, would be voting for Romney if he were an Independent? How many would be voting for the man, not the "side"? Take that little letter away, and vote for the man, vote for the candidate who you think will do the best job. Based on words actually spoken. Based on past policies supported and enacted. Based on the job that they've done.

I am STILL fairly Conservative, but the party has abandoned those principles, but there are still folks I will vote for, based on their policy decisions. Based on their record. Some of them are Republicans. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them won't be either, this time around. I can say, for certain, that Mitt is NOT a good choice for the nation. If he were a Democrat, the folks who are decrying his treatment would be screaming for his head.

And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.

coyo:amquelbettamin: Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.

Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.

hubiestubert:And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.

Motherfarking THIS. You know, if they hadn't ousted Huntsman as a science-and-common-sense-addled RINO, I probably still would vote for Obama, but I sure as hell wouldn't be tearing my hair out if Huntsman won. The man's got sense and sensibility, and I'd be happy enough having him as my President (and I'm sure our allies would, too). This goddamned "team spirit" thing is tearing us apart as a country, and it needs to end pronto. Unfortunately, in the astroturfing of the Tea Party, Fox news (the most egregious cheerleaders for their team), corporate America and the GOP created a golem they can no longer control, and it's only pushed us into the depths of hyperpartisanship.

amquelbettamin:Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.

Saying the system as it exists right now isn't fair is a statement that everyone who isn't given advantages by the system is a victim of it?

You DO realize that there isn't one person running for office who isn't running on a promise of changed policy. Everyone thinks that the government isn't doing right by the people, and believes policies can be put in place to relieve these concerns.

It would be like claiming Romney is supported by a bunch of people who see themselves as victims of the government because their marginal federal income taxes rates are 20% higher then where he thinks they should be.

No. The issue isn't what Romney did or did not say. If you believe that anything a presidential candidate says during campaign fundraisers should be public information, then go ask for that to be made into law. I'm not saying I disagree with the notion. That's not what interests me.

What interests me is why anyone thinks this is ok to do. Let's remove the presidential campaign aspect of this. Suppose this was a CEO talking about an upcoming product. Would not corporate espionage laws apply? When an event is held as a PRIVATE HOME, why cannot a reasonable level of privacy be expected?

This whole social media, I get to know everything about everyone, voyeurism mentality is ridiculous.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:TOSViolation: Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

Another GED in law.

Nope. No law degree of any sort. That statement was not a statement of law. It was a statement of opinion. Note the word MIGHT in there. For all we know, the person who recorded the event was hired under a confidentiality agreement in her contract. I just feel like a crime occurred in the secret recording. I'm not sure how hidden camera shows and news investigations get away with some of the things they do either.

Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.

Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!

lol... you think your vote matters

I'm tired of being offered a "choice" between 2 equally shiatty options. "only those with an R or a D in parentheses can possibly win, all others are to be ignored or mocked/shouted down"The 2 party system needs to die. now. then and only then will we be able to discuss actual issues rather than "platforms" and "talking points".

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.

You know how I know you don't understand the significance of Adam Smith?

Aside from that, the argument is that people receiving capital gains income should be taxed at a higher rate than those who's income comes from a job. The job increases the wealth of society and is useful. The income from capital gains is fallow - it has no benefit to society.

atomic-age:BuckTurgidson: atomic-age: Raharu: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.

What does RmoneyMoney (his rap name) bring to the table?

What are the specifics of his plan to aid America in these troubled times?

What is RmoneyMoneys position on key issues?

tax cuts

Don't forget deregulation, and more unneeded defense spending.

Don't worry, the tax cuts will pay for the unneeded defense spending.

It's not that the spending is unneeded, it's that we're spending so much on shiat like jets that can't fly in the rain and try to kill pilots, weapons systems that don't work/don't solve problems, and military hardware that is obsolete by any general standard of modern warfare, we can't afford the small stuff like better vehicles that are safer against IEDs and other hit and run attacks, better body armor, better healthcare for vets, improved training methods, etc.

Seriously, our nation focuses so much on the cool shiat that we neglect the basic fact that without sufficient training and skill, any advantage cool gadgets may give us is negated by incompetance of the soldier/marine/whatever.

I know a fair few old school military folks that were in NSW and other similar elite units, and all of them talk about some of the piss poor training and skills by more common units they encountered.

So, yeah, maybe spending on what we need, like basics for personnel housing, care, training, protection, and outfitting, and less on the next super nuke that we won't use, or jet we'll warehouse.